6
   

How do revenge and morality tie in together?

 
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:13 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
You must think I'm unfamiliar with the English language...


No, actually I thought otherwise. I would have thought you could distinguish a parenthetical comment, meant to elucidate a question, from an imperative. Sorry if I gave you too much credit.

If you are that insistent upon taking offense, and that ready to repeatedly call someone a liar, then I can see how you could find almost anything "offensive" and tantamount to "trying to pick a fight."



Oh layman, nice try but no cigar. I can distinguish a parenthetical comment, sadly you didn't provide one. I initially thought I could encourage you to drop the overly-defensive posture. I don't think you really thought you gave me too much credit, I think you expected me to be a pushover. And sadly you have gone from "sounding like you are picking a fight" to actually picking a fight. If you can lie to yourself and then believe the lie, thats not all that uncommon for some folks. But assuming you can lie or obfuscate to others is a tad more risky and not always accepted as the truth. Not everyone is as dumb as you would like to think.

Anyhow, I'm getting a little bored (more like stultified) and initially this thread struck me as peculiar so I read a few posts to see if it could be interesting. I was a little surprised to see you get hostile (my perception) with a2k members who were actually agreeing with you. It struck me as uncharacteristic for you, but apparently I gave you too much credit. I'll admit I misjudged you, but who really cares. So, I'm removing this thread from my posts to avoid being provoked over silly stuff. Have fun
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:16 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
Do you really expect me to believe your clever remark can't be interpreted as you telling me to 'shut my mouth'


I never said that. Of course they "can" be interpreted that way IF you read them (1) literally and (2) out of context. The exact words you seem to be latching onto were "you can shut your mouth." If that was all that was said, then there's no other way you could take it. But I already said what I meant. You don't want to (1) hear it or (2) believe it. Help yourself. You seem to inseparable from your own subjective interpretation, regardless of any different way to view something.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 10:36 pm
@glitterbag,
Quote:
I was a little surprised to see you get hostile (my perception) with a2k members who were actually agreeing with you.


Thank you for your parenthetical comment. At least you acknowledge that people can perceive things differently. I didn't think Joe was "actually agreeing with me," even if he was. I still don't. Of course I could be wrong about that. I might know more about what he intended if he responds to my last post to him (stating the origin of the disagreement that I perceived).
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 03:29 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
John Stuart Mill?

Plato?


Wow, you're going deep...i referenced John Stuart Mill because i thought he was relevant to the morality/ utilitarian argument...You chose not to address that and referenced Plato! Is he your go-to guy? What does Plato have to do with your current argument? Right, nothing?

Given your current "debate" sitch, don't you wish you'd actually referenced relevant arguments and data? You might have received some reasonable and relevant responses...

Too bad.

Now this thread is crap.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 07:47 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
I didn't suspect that my personal moral views were the topic, sorry.

I wasn't attempting to ascertain your personal moral views, I was attempting to ascertain whether you were being inconsistent or a moral relativist. I'm still not sure.

layman wrote:
I suppose I would say that, yeah, if you're thinking about doing something immoral, then you are thinking "immoral thoughts."

In the same way, I suppose if you were thinking of cats, you'd be thinking "cat thoughts," but that wouldn't mean those thoughts were cats. It's something of a dodge to say that you are thinking "immoral thoughts" when you're thinking about doing something immoral. The question is whether those thoughts are immoral (i.e. whether you are blameworthy for having those thoughts) or not.

layman wrote:
That's why I don't agree with what appeared to me to be your attempt to completely expel internal states from any discussion of "morality." I got the impression that you were trying to say that there is, and can be, no possible connection between "concepts" and morality (in general, not my personal morality).

Your impression is incorrect. You're arguing with yourself on that point.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 08:22 am
@Razzleg,
Quote:
Given your current "debate" sitch, don't you wish you'd actually referenced relevant arguments and data?


And where, exactly, did you make any "relevant argument" or provide any "data," Razz?

Nietzsche?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 08:29 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I got the impression that you were trying to say that there is, and can be, no possible connection between "concepts" and morality (in general, not my personal morality).

Quote:

Your impression is incorrect


So you're NOT saying that ONLY actions can be immoral? Then what did you mean by this?

Quote:
"Revenge" is not an action, therefore it is morally neutral.


Your original statement of your position, which I responded to, was this:
Quote:

Morality concerns itself with the distinction between good and bad actions. Revenge isn't an action, it's a concept, so it is morally neutral
.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 08:52 am
@layman,
You do realize that your previous posts don't disappear as soon as you submit another one, right? So I - and anyone else, including you - can check your previous posts to make sure that you're not being inconsistent or changing the terms of the discussion - you're aware of that? I only ask because, if you knew that the entire thread was archived and available for review, you would instantly realize that, by agreeing that "there can be a connection between concepts and morality," I was not denying that "only actions can be immoral." That's because they are not the same things. Thoughts and motives can certainly inform actions, but thoughts, motives, and concepts without actions are all morally neutral. In the end, only actions have a moral value.

At this point, I'm not sure if you're being willfully obtuse or just being argumentative for argument's sake, as glitterbag has suggested. I await any evidence that might convince me otherwise.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 09:04 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
I was not denying that "only actions can be immoral."


Right, that's what I thought you said. You weren't denying it, you were affirming it.

Quote:
In the end, only actions have a moral value.


Again, that's exactly what I thought you said. That's what I said I thought you said. You pretended that I misread you. You, too, can go back and look at the posts, eh?

You have used the terms 'not an action" and "concept" interchangeably, and have repeatedly said that such things are devoid of moral content ("morally neutral"). If they're neutral, then "concepts" would not play into any discussion of morality, you are saying, ONLY actions can be judged from a moral perspective, you're saying, right?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 09:49 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
If they're neutral, then "concepts" would not play into any discussion of morality, you are saying,

Once again, you're arguing with a strawman. I'm sorry that you formed a comically incorrect version of my position, and are now furiously trying to tear it down. But that's on you. I did nothing to create or foster your confusion. You did that all on your own.

Let me put this in more concrete terms - and move the discussion back to the ostensible theme of this thread - by posing the following situation: suppose Person A stabs Person B to death. Without more facts, we can't really judge whether Person A was acting morally or not. It's possible that Person A was acting in self-defense, or was seized by a delusion, or simply hated Person B. But let's say that Person A had a personal vendetta against Person B, and so was motivated by revenge. That additional bit of information can certainly help us determine whether or not Person A acted immorally, but even then it's only one bit of additional information.

Now, let's say that Person A only thought about stabbing Person B to death. Does it matter to our analysis whether Person A also had a personal vendetta against Person B? Is Person A, in other words, morally blameworthy for having murderous thoughts about Person B if Person A does not act on those thoughts, and is Person A more blameworthy if those thoughts are motivated by revenge?
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 10:51 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
But let's say that Person A had a personal vendetta against Person B, and so was motivated by revenge. That additional bit of information can certainly help us determine whether or not Person A acted immorally, but even then it's only one bit of additional information.


OK, I agree with this.

Quote:
Now, let's say that Person A only thought about stabbing Person B to death. Does it matter to our analysis whether Person A also had a personal vendetta against Person B


Yeah, the analysis would be the same, assuming you're willing to assess any degree of morality to intentions to begin with. The degree of blame (not to say the amount) would be the same. Their reasons for having their intentions would also need to be looked at.

Have you changed your position, that ONLY actions can be judged to have any moral relevance?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 11:44 am
@layman,
layman wrote:
Have you changed your position, that ONLY actions can be judged to have any moral relevance?

That was never my position, so I couldn't have changed it.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 11:53 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
That was never my position, so I couldn't have changed it.


OK, whatever you say. I can't know what your "position" is because I can't read minds. I can only read your words, ones which have been repeated and re-affirmed by you.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 12:39 pm
@layman,

Quote:
Nietzsche?


If you're claiming that my "response" is meaningless, Razz, then thank you. You made my (implicit) point for me. The point being that the exact same thing could be said about your "argument and data." My "answer" merely imitated and mirrored your "question."
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Nov, 2015 03:12 pm
I find I can understand this conversation quite well by reading it through my left ear.
0 Replies
 
premiumbite
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Dec, 2015 06:29 pm
@LittleAristotle,
Hi,

I agree with revenge... people won't do harm if they know someone will revenge
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 09:20 pm
@LittleAristotle,
LittleAristotle wrote:
I believe revenge to always be justified morally because we all have different morals, but I'm not exactly sure how they relate...

Two separate points:

(1) I don't see how your conclusion that revenge is always justified logically follows from your premise that we all have different morals. Care to explain?

(2) As best I can tell, your conclusion is false in all common moral philosophies.

(a) In virtue ethics, where morality attaches to personal character, revenge is a failure to cultivate the virtues of temperance and forgiveness or, what amounts to the same, succumbing to the sin of anger.

(b) In moral philosophies where morality attaches to actions --- their consequences, their propriety under some social contract, the maxims driving them, and whatnot --- revenge is morally neutral because it's not an action by itself. (Joefromchicago already explained this.)

For what it's worth, I cannot think of any moral philosophy under which revenge is always morally justified.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 06:47 am
If it exists it has a purpose...
Retribution, I dislike the term revenge, is a "moral equalizer" when true Moral is lacking, it keeps people in their toes...
It is precisely because human beings normally fail at ethical and moral behaviour as Universal norms that should be always respected that things like retribution have clear operational value. They contribute to the learning of moral values not per se but by sheer necessity. Its actual justification blossoms from our failure as an intuitive moral species. We are guided by NEED not by insight. Perhaps to put it more maturely and better, insight must look at actual needs to be productive. It is the fear of retribution that enforces the need of moral norms. Moral norms themselves are justified in Cosmological order, but their practical operation depends on the possibility they can be faulted with.
In sum, and to come full circle, if the principle is to be followed, "if it exists it has purpose" then there are both the need to be moral and immoral. Moral requires the possibility of moral failure. True Order, simulates pseudo disorder trough complexity, through layers of operational contexts with distinct rule sets bound to ensure mutual equilibrium...funny enough all of that is in the true Order of things.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

engaged and broke up by her mother - Discussion by hAppym32
Killing someone indirectly - Question by seamos
Yes or no - Question by jmr1972
roomate revenge - Discussion by boomstank22
Is he angry at me or uninterested? - Question by girl27
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 10:19:11